Where does Obama stand on coal port?

A phenomenal total of 165,000 people have written or signed comments to federal, state and local agencies evaluating a proposed coal export terminal in Longview on the Columbia River, topping the number heard from on another coal port proposed for Cherry Point, north of Bellingham.

And 21 state legislators have weighed in, in a tough letter urging a sweeping review of what impacts the terminals, which would ship coal to China, would have on both the “natural environment” and “Washington’s built environment . . . impacts felt by cities and counties across Washington state.”

A coal train: Will state’s transportation infrastructure have to be altered if huge coal export terminals are built at Cherry Point in Whatcom County, and Longview on the Columbia River?

The lawmakers’ letter, signed by Seattle’s Mayor-elect Ed Murray, is a direct shot across the bow of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which opted to do a very limited, site specific environmental study of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal project at Cherry Point.

It’s also a message to President Obama. The president is due in the Puget Sound area for one of his “cash and dash” big-ticket fundraising visits.

“You are going to invite an awful lot of backlash against the federal government if a momentous policy decision is made by a disengaged, inadequately informed federal bureaucracy back in a windowless office in Washington, D.C.,” said state Rep. Reuven Carlyle, D-Seattle, who put together the letter.

Govs. Jay Inslee of Washington and John Kitzhaber of Oregon, in a letter to Obama last spring, urged a full comprehensive review of any policy to let U.S. corporations feed China’s coal-burning power plants, using coal mined on public lands and infrastructure maintained by public dollars.

The governors urged the president to bring in the White House Council on Environmental Quality, specifically to look at impacts on public lands in the U.S., and implications for climate. Obama has not responded to the letter from the two Democratic governors.

“You cannot have a sweeping proposal, interstate in nature, with disproportionate negative impacts on two states — Washington and Oregon — while the economic benefits sway toward other states,” Carlyle said. “You can’t invoke the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution without being responsive to the states.”

The Millennium Bulk Terminals proposal for Longview is being reviewed by the Army Corps of Engineers, the state Department of Ecology and Cowlitz County. The port would cost an estimated $600 million. The proposal is sponsored by Ambre Energy and Arch Coal.

The coal industry in the United States is in steep decline, the victim of readily available natural gas as well as environmental resistance. Late last week, the Tennessee Valley Authority announced that it plans to shut down eight coal-burning power plants.

Big Coal is looking to China, which burns far more coal than any other country on Earth — and leads the globe in emissions of greenhouse gases. The coal port proposals have won support from chambers of commerce, construction unions, and the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railroad.

Critics have begun to raise economic issues, noting pressure on the Chinese government to reduce pollution that has lately choked Beijing and other cities. They also note that Australia and Indonesia, closer to China than the U.S., are the world’s two largest coal producers.

The legislators took note, stating:

“Coal’s share of the energy production in China has fallen in the past year, and reports suggest that coal surpluses are accumulating as coal burning power plants taper energy production in the face of declining demand.”

The letter notes that construction and operation of the coal terminals will require not only private investment, but taxpayers’ dollars for infrastructure:

“On top of $600 million cost of constructing the Millennium facility, significant public investment will be necessary to accommodate the project, and much of Washington’s transportation infrastructure will have to be altered and tailored toward the export of coal.”

Before making that investment, government needs to evaluate the “long term viability of coal” as an “economic driver” of the Pacific Northwest.

Opposition to the proposed coal ports shows no sign of ebbing. A slate of four conservationist-backed candidates won seats on the Whatcom County Council earlier this month. The Gateway Pacific project was a major issue in the election. The County Council will have quasi-judicial authority in whether to grant permits for the coal terminal.

Surveys have shown region-wide support for the coal ports, but a new survey by Public Policy Polling ha found intensified opposition along routes where coal trains, each a mile to mile-and-a-half long, would pass.